This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

It may or may not go ahead of the child's head. It's not reading all that much into it. We can find all sorts of goodies in popular culture if you look. Again, it's not really shocking, and it's why I sometimes encourage it with a large chunk of films portraying the 1950s (they tend to use a New Left or Neomarxist framework). Conservatives aren't afraid of doing it, at least sometimes.

Image 1: The discussion seems to center on his status as a white man, against that of his people, for discontent.

Image 2: We can pull it back a bit. I wasn't simply stating racist, I was going after the notion that this wouldn't be offensive. So, on the first step, it certainly can be offensive if you are looking at it from the perspective of the colonized. Romanticization of Americanization projects in Indian Boarding Schools in the United States would likewise cause controversy, and not without merit. Next, to attach racial components to it, you have to recall that the Belgians, along with every great European power, did impart racial hierarchies to justify their empires. The choice to educate students about the great empire of Belgium is not just a choice of empire and the nation, it is a choice of cultural and racial superiority taken as a rather matter-of-fact view for the time period and place at which the story was written.

More on Image 2: Again, think about the subject from a post-colonialist perspective. If one were to strive to overcome one's national "sins" or perhaps address portrayals of other cultures in your popular culture, then this would be cause for offense. It's why we Americans criticize what the Japanese do in their classrooms regarding acknowledging or discussing the sins of their own empire (I'm especially thinking about the Chinese here), and do the same in many other countries.

Image 3: What about Tin-Tin gives him status? Is it his wealth? Is it his nationality?

The idea that we have "sins" which need to be "atoned" for in the first place is a big part of the problem here.

It was a different time, with a different culture, and different values. There's no real need to take things much further than that within the context of "acceptable" literature.

I agree that simple analysis isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but the kind of value judgments you're throwing into this simply are not necessary. Wringing our hands over past injustices that people living today had no role in committing isn't going to help anyone.

If the people residing in a given society generally live in poverty, and lack access to basic necessities like indoor plumbing, electricity, clean water, and elementary education, then they just might need a helping hand every now and then.

It did. It has. Today, the only sense you'd have that the DRC was once owned by the Belgians is the modern day carnage handed down by Leopold.

What's the problem then?

Unless of course the depiction of colonialism is one meant to whitewash the atrocities committed. You're being purposely obtuse.

Again man, it was written during the 1930s. Most of the public's views on colonialist endeavors and the colonialist mindset would have been positive during this period. Trying to "white wash" this fact out of our society's cultural record isn't going to change it.

Take the attitudes the book expresses as being a product of their time and simply move on.

Call it a day Fiddy. This guy is an apologist. He hides behind "in their context" and then ignores the colonial context not to mention completely dismisses barbaric history of the Belgian Congo (see Leopold) - which is a large part of the story's extensive context. Only on DP folks.

It may or may not be. All I'm saying is that I really don't see "colonialism" as being particularly offensive in and of itself.

In the context of the Belgium congo, there wasn't much to redeem it. It's probably the worst example of western colonialism one can cite, with leopold basically treatinG everyone and everything within it as his personal property, to do as he willed. It's little coincidence it served as the setting for Conrad's "heart of Darkness"